BGuthrie Photos: Smithsonian Associates -- Strange Bedfellows: The Military and the Movies

Smithsonian Associates -- Strange Bedfellows: The Military and the Movies:

Bruce Guthrie Photos Home Page: [Click here] to go to Bruce Guthrie Photos home page.

Description of Pictures: This was a series of three panel discussions about the relationship between Hollywood and the military. It discussed how the military public affairs offices would, in exchange for acceptable portrayals of their services, help out with military vehicles and troops as well as advise. It was supposed to be hosted by Jack Valenti, the head of the Motion Picture Association, but he was a no-show. In fact, most of the participants were different from what was listed in the program. Instead, the panels were all moderated by Larry Suid (author of "Guts and Glory"). The first panel consisted of Norm Hatch, Susan Hankey, Kathleen Ross, and Phil Strub. The second was Ken Wales, Mitch Marovitz, Gary Shrout, and Thomas Matthews. The third was Robert Fyne, Peter Lev, and Jack Green. More detailed about each is provided below.

Recognize anyone? If you recognize specific folks (or other stuff) and I haven't labeled them, please identify them for the world. Click the little pencil icon

underneath the file name (just above the picture). Spammers need not apply.

Slide Show: Want to see the pictures as a slide show? [Slideshow]

Copyrights: All pictures were taken by amateur photographer Bruce Guthrie (me!) who retains copyright on them. Free for non-commercial use with attribution. See the [Creative Commons] definition of what this means. "Photos (c) Bruce Guthrie" is fine for attribution. (Commercial use folks including AI scrapers can of course contact me.) Feel free to use in publications and pages with attribution but you don't have permission to sell the photos themselves. A free copy of any printed publication using any photographs is requested. Descriptive text, if any, is from a mixture of sources, quite frequently from signs at the location or from official web sites; copyrights, if any, are retained by their original owners.

Help? The Medium (Email) links are for screen viewing and emailing. You'll want bigger sizes for printing. [Click here for additional help]

Share: Facebook Twitter Digg
[1] SASB_030504_020.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[2] SASB_030504_029.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[3] SASB_030504_031.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[4] SASB_030504_034.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[5] SASB_030504_039.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[6] SASB_030504_056.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[7] SASB_030504_080.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[8] SASB_030504_124.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[9] SASB_030504_130.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[10] SASB_030504_142.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[11] SASB_030504_153.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[12] SASB_030504_174.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[13] SASB_030504_183.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[14] SASB_030504_186.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[15] SASB_030504_193.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[16] SASB_030504_238.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[17] SASB_030504_240.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[18] SASB_030504_302.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[19] SASB_030504_307.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[20] SASB_030504_334.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[21] SASB_030504_337.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[22] SASB_030504_352.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)

Specific picture descriptions: Photos above with "i" icons next to the bracketed sequence numbers (e.g. "[1] ") are described as follows:
1. SASB_030504_020.JPG: Larry Suid, author of "Guts and Glory", was the moderator for all of the panel discussions.
2. SASB_030504_029.JPG: Panel 1: Susan Hankey ("Fred"), DOD Public Affairs assistant. She worked with someone named Baruch (?) who was replaced by Phil Strub.
3. SASB_030504_031.JPG: Panel 1: Kathleen Ross (director, Army Public Affairs Office, LA)
4. SASB_030504_034.JPG: Panel 1: Phil Strub (special assistant for audiovisual at the Pentagon). He was a 1974 University of Southern California film graduate school before moving to the Pentagon. This is the guy who ultimately approves every script submitted to the Pentagon for assistance. The military will approve a lot of movies even though they're not keen on the themes but he mentioned there were several examples that they just couldn't do it. One of these was "Crimson Tide" which featured a mutiny on a nuclear submarine and the other was "Broken Arrow" which features the theft of a nuclear weapon. Neither scenario had occurred in real life and they didn't want to encourage them so they didn't support the movies. Also, if the movie universally portrays their people in a bad light, they don't get approval ("Dr Strangelove", for example, was not provided assistance). But the military has been helping movies as far back as DW Griffith's "The Birth of a Nation" (1915). In 1927's "Wings", basically the entire army air corps was provided to help some of the scenes. In the original "King Kong", the army refused to have its aircraft involved and the producers ended up essentially bribing a lot of flight crews doing training flights to get them to do the scenes. Some movies like "Air Force One" received full support while "Outbreak" only received courtesy assistance (in this case, because the military was hiding its culpability in cultivating the deadly virus).
5. SASB_030504_039.JPG: Here is panel 1. Left to right: Norm Hatch, Susan Hankey, Kathleen Ross, and Phil Strub.
6. SASB_030504_056.JPG: Panel 1: Norm Hatch, chief of Audio-Visual Division (OSDPA, 1968-79). He talked about filming WWII-vintage films.
7. SASB_030504_080.JPG: This is a decent article from http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7906/opholl.htm which explains a lot about how things work in this area. It features several people who were part of the panel. Operation Hollywood: Aiding Producers, Protecting Military Image By Linda Perlstein Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, August 17, 1998; Page A17 MALIBU, Calif.--Maj. Ben Frazier, an 18-year veteran of the Army, has been preparing this sortie for months, and his troops have only one chance to do it right. The parachutists' target: an impossibly small square of beach, bound by a rocky cliff, the ocean, a barbed-wire fence and a beach strewn with bodies. One by one, his men touch down gently on their mark, and Frazier, clad in full battle camouflage, sighs with relief. Cut! The force that has secured this beachhead -- the cast and crew of the hit show "Baywatch" -- high-five. "That's the Army, baby," coos Frazier's commander for this landing, "Baywatch" director Greg Bonann. Another successful mission for the Army's public affairs department. If you're making a movie or television show that features war, or soldiers, or Apache helicopters whipping through the sky, and you want to use armed services equipment, locations or personnel, you seek the approval of the Department of Defense. Assistance comes cheap -- the Pentagon doesn't make any money off this -- but, with the military exercising strict control over content, it's not entirely without a price. In a Westwood high-rise, 21 employees representing each of the four branches of the military and the Coast Guard cooperate with -- or refuse cooperation to -- the makers of feature films, TV shows, documentaries, books and even video games. One recent day, Army officers were meeting with the producer of a TV pilot about West Point, Hootie and the Blowfish were shooting a video at Edwards Air Force Base, and the Marines were sending up "Pensacola: Wings of Gold" actors in F-18s. The assistance can be as simple as advice on how to salute and as complicated as borrowing a nuclear sub. The Pentagon has strict criteria for what it will help with, and for a director intent on shooting at a particular location or using certain equipment, that sometimes means months-long negotiations and substantial script revisions. Pentagon officials say the resources expended on Hollywood are a vital form of public relations. Kathleen Ross, director of Army public affairs in Los Angeles, points out that a 30-second TV commercial can have only so much impact. "But take a movie we supported, like 'Top Gun,' which was two hours," she said. "That was all a recruiting pitch, and we didn't have to pay anything for it." The military will give what it calls "courtesy assistance" -- telling a screenwriter how a Bangalore torpedo works, say -- to anyone who calls. Full support, which includes personnel, materiel and locations, is harder to come by. Submitted scripts are reviewed in the L.A. offices and passed up to Phil Strub, special assistant for audiovisual at the Pentagon, for ultimate approval. Among the considerations: A script must be accurate, or at least plausible. Characters should generally act "within a military environment" rather than as a lone wolf. Bad guys should be balanced with good guys. The Pentagon will allow depictions of adultery, murder and even, Strub says, devil worship. "It all depends on how it's depicted in the script," he said. "If it seems to be commonplace, ignored, accepted, that's one thing. It's another if it seems to be an isolated incident where you understand that this is a renegade, criminal activity discovered within the system and dealt with in the military, and it didn't require someone outside to take action." The assistance cannot cause too much disruption of everyday military operations, a consideration that sometimes frustrates producers. "They seem to think we have a 'For Hollywood' where everything's waiting to be used," Ross said. "Nothing's at our beck and call." Finally, the military must play at least a supporting role, not merely a bit part. Otherwise, Strub says, "there's nothing in it for us." And what is in it for them? Recruiting, says Maj. T.V. Johnson of the Marines: "If Ma and Pa are sitting in the living room watching and say, 'I didn't know the Marines did that,' and Junior says, 'Gee, I want to be a Marine pilot one day,' and they say, 'I don't know much about the Marines but they seem like a pretty good outfit,' that helps us leaps and bounds." Public relations, says Maj. Mary-Ann Neri of the Air Force: "We're showing voters what they bought." Troop morale, says Capt. Ron Morse of the Navy: "I'm working so sailors and their families can go to a film and point up at the screen and say, 'I'm part of that organization' and feel good about it." Even comedies, no matter how wacky, are seriously considered. Despite Pauly Shore's jokes about flatulence and sex, the Army helped out "In the Army Now." "There's a lot of good things that happen to that character," Strub explained, "and they're almost all attributable to the Army. His girlfriend says that he's bulked out; he says, 'Army training!' " Director Ed Zwick wasn't so fortunate. His 1996 film "Courage Under Fire" portrays friendly fire in the Persian Gulf War, the resulting cover-up and veterans with all manner of battle scars. Strub said that despite the obvious problems the Army had with the story, they worked with Zwick initially because "we saw that they were trying to write a thoughtful script." But after several months of back-and-forth -- Zwick agreed that Denzel Washington's character would not drink on the job, for example, but refused to change a scene in which a soldier incites mutiny -- he was denied cooperation. "Throughout the depiction of those soldiers and those generals," Strub said, "you get the impression that the Army as an institution is corrupt, except for a couple of people who were just so naive they failed to notice everything that was rotten around them." So Zwick wound up spending $1 million more on equipment and special effects than he would have if he had let the Army have its way. The experience left him bitter. "They should be in the business of providing support for everyone or no one at all," he complained. Strub rejects Zwick's contention that the military sidesteps tough issues. The Army's biggest project right now, "West Point USMA," a television pilot filmed last month at the academy, "is by no means a wackiest-ship-in-the-Army type of lightweight production." It even portrays violent hazing rituals. But by maintaining some control over the production, the Army can ease the sting. Frazier spent months working on the pilot, from teaching the actors how to march to spending five weeks at the academy supervising the shoot. At West Point, the Army advisers were exacting about accuracy. The actors had their hair cut by the West Point barber, and Frazier measured ribbons with a ruler. He had the costume designer in tears until she got it right. A few weeks later, Beth Sullivan, executive producer of "West Point USMA" and creator of "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman," and Frazier are in her office discussing what kind of summer assignments the characters can have. They make plans to send video clips to West Point alumni, to head off any criticism. They decide Frazier will see the final cut before anyone else, "just in case there's something I missed," he said. The Pentagon also spends a lot of time "going through the cherished lexicon of Hollywood and debunking the stereotypes," Strub said, such as the notion that military people are callous automatons. On the set of the disaster movie "Deep Impact," for which the Army provided helicopters and personnel, Master Sgt. Jay Field took exception to a National Guardsman's gruffness and told director Mimi Leder that while soldiers are businesslike, they would be more thoughtful when splitting up families before the apocalypse. So she gave him a scrap of paper and asked him to rewrite the lines. He did, and they reshot the scene. Critics wonder whether this isn't just another Pentagon boondoggle. The Army public affairs office in Los Angeles, which focuses a small portion of its attention outside the entertainment industry, has an operating budget this year of $153,000, which includes salaries for the office's two civilians but not its two military personnel, and does not include rent. The public affairs officers say their operation doesn't cost American taxpayers anything. The expenses are minimal, they say, and outweighed by the benefits of free publicity. Locations and technical advisers are free. A small processing fee is charged for stock footage, and for equipment, producers pay a fee that covers only operating costs, such as fuel. A nuclear sub cost the film "The Hunt for Red October" $400 a day; an Abrams tank is $1,517; a Humvee rents for $30, cheaper than a Chevy Cavalier. Servicemen and women going about their normal duties -- jogging down the street, eating in the mess hall -- can be filmed at no cost. Otherwise, to act as extras they must go on leave and be hired by the production company. There has been an official Hollywood-military connection for years, ever since William Wellman's "Wings" in 1927. It has changed a good deal since World War II, when the Office of War Information "strong-armed producers into producing gung-ho material," and "if you didn't get military cooperation, you were hopelessly relegated to a cheesy production," Strub said. All the services pitch their wares -- each month the Navy takes industry folk to San Diego to show off new equipment -- but the Army, more than its fellow services, pitches stories. The Army is currently toying with an idea for an episode of the sitcom "Frasier," in which Frasier and Niles would wind up in basic training for a day. The "Baywatch" episode was Maj. Frazier's brainchild; he wanted to showcase the Golden Knights, the Army's elite parachute demonstration team. The major approached executive producer Bonann, who works regularly with the Coast Guard, and the two crafted a story: The father of the head lifeguard (star David Hasselhoff) is a friend of the Golden Knights captain. So when they're in town for an air show, they take Hasselhoff for a jump. While they're in the air, they're called to rescue swimmers off Catalina Island. Bonann has Hollywood's highest praise for Frazier's screenwriting skills: "He's awesome." To those who think it silly that the Army gives serious attention to a show that pays more attention to the curves of its actresses than the twists of its plots, public affairs director Ross has this to say: "Baywatch" is perhaps the most-watched TV series on the planet, and it fits the Army mission perfectly. "If you took away their bikinis and their thongs," she said, "it is about a team doing good things." Two Thumbs Down; Recent movies denied military cooperation: "Outbreak" A medical researcher who is a two-star Army general unilaterally orders a village destroyed, quite contrary to government policy. "Independence Day" "The idea that our military would pose such an ineffectual and inept opposition was not exactly a flattering portrayal," said Phil Strub, special assistant for audiovisual at the Pentagon. Not to mention the fact that an alcoholic crop-duster flies a military jet, Will Smith's girlfriend is an exotic dancer and the government tortures aliens at a secret lab. Finally, Strub said, "his mustache had to be trimmed." "Godzilla" "The military gets creamed," Strub said. "Broken Arrow" An Air Force pilot steals two live nuclear weapons. "It made it look so easy, like everyone could be doing it," said Maj. Mary-Ann Neri, deputy director of Air Force public affairs in Los Angeles. "The Peacemaker" George Clooney plays a lieutenant colonel who saves the world single-handedly. "The Army works like a team," said Kathleen Ross, director of Army public affairs in Los Angeles. "We don't go off like Rambo." "The Thin Red Line" Terrence Malick wanted a full-time technical adviser for the upcoming World War II film; the Army simply didn't have anyone to spare. "A Few Good Men" The director got minor assistance, but not what he really wanted: two weeks at a naval base and the Marine Band. "The problem with 'A Few Good Men,'" Strub said, "was there weren't any good men." "G.I. Jane" Contrary to popular belief, the movie wasn't denied cooperation because it featured a female Navy SEAL. Instead, the Navy opposed the way the trainees were beaten at a prisoner of war camp. The script also had a strong hint of a gay relationship, Strub said, and a "troglodyte commanding officer treating everyone as people way beneath his dignity." (c) 1998 L&M Associates LMPRODHMA@aol.com
8. SASB_030504_124.JPG: Panel 2: Gary Shrout (Naval Public Affairs Office, LA)
9. SASB_030504_142.JPG: Panel 2: Thomas Matthews (Technical Advisor, "Black Hawk Down"). He had actually been involved in the planning of the assault there.
10. SASB_030504_153.JPG: Panel 2: Kenneth Wales (producer, author of "Sea of Glory"). He started out as an actor (1961-68) but then went on to be a producer of a variety of movies including "The Wild Rovers" (1971) and "Revenge of the Pink Panther" (1978).
11. SASB_030504_174.JPG: Another decent article, this one from http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/s600389.htm Critics disturbed by Hollywood, defense relationship Correspondents' Report - Sunday, July 7, 2002 8:10 COMPERE: The latest blockbusters from Hollywood seem to be breaking new ground - not just at the box office, but in their extraordinary cooperation with the United States Military, with billions of dollars worth of defense equipment now being made available at a price. The movie producers say it makes their films more realistic, while the Pentagon is happy with the good publicity. But critics are disturbed by this cosy relationship and are questioning the influence the military is wielding. Lisa Millar reports. LISA MILLAR: The Sum of all Fears is the latest Tom Clancy novel to make it onto the big screen. The hero, Jack Ryan is back, but he is unable to say "Baltimore from a nuclear bomb". He does get to play with millions of dollars worth of military equipment though and it's the real thing. Phil Strub is the special assistant, for Entertainment Media at the US Department of Defense. PHIL STRUB: Well in The Sum of all Fears we provided a fair amount of assistance -- marine corps helicopters, a navy ship, army equipment, air force bomber, airborne commander center -- quite a bit. Not many days, but quite a bit of assistance. LISA MILLAR: In fact the makers of Sum of All Fears had access to inner sanctums, consulted with CIA officials, and even got a personal tour of CIA headquarters from the director himself. Phil Strub receives hundreds of requests from producers wanting to make their movies as realistic as possible. PHIL STRUB: When film makers come to us, and want our help to make a movie or a TV show, we see this as an important opportunity to tell the American public something about the US military, and then may be help recruiting or retention as a by-product. LISA MILLAR: But not all the movies get the green light. Phil Strub has no problem saying ‘no' to producers who want to use the military's equipment, but make them out to be the bad guys. PHIL STRUB: Well I say that it's quite true that we look for realism, military realism, within the narrow limits of dramatic movie making. We understand that there's artistic licence and these are not documentaries. So in our opinion, if you depict the US military as unrelentingly negative, that's not realistic. So yes in a sense, we're looking for positive portrayal. LISA MILLAR: But Chuck Pena, from the Washington base think tank, the Cato Institute, believes the military's influence is extending too far. Wind Hawkers is a World War II movie about Japanese code breakers -- a scene in which an American soldier steals a gold tooth from a dead enemy, was dropped from he movie at the insistence of the Pentagon. CHUCK PENA: I mean the Pentagon's motives are pretty clear -- which is, let's go find movies that paint flattering pictures of the military -- flattering even if it's not true in some cases. LISA MILLAR: While the military's been helping Hollywood for more than a century, Top Gun was the start of a whole new era. The Tom Cruise hit, which featured fast planes and fast men, is believed to have sparked a boost in recruitment figures for the military. But Charles Pena says if they need to boost the military intake, they should do it some other way. CHUCK PENA: The problem is that this is literally tax-payer dollars. And the purpose of the United States military is to defend the American public and to if necessary wage wars, it's not to make movies. LISA MILLAR: But the Pentagon says it gets paid well for its services. The helicopters in Black Hawk Down cost the movie's producers $7,000 an hour to fly. And despite the criticism, it's not planning on saying ‘goodbye to Hollywood' just yet.
12. SASB_030504_183.JPG: Here is panel 2. Left to right: Ken Wales, Mitch Marovitz, Gary Shrout, and Thomas Matthews.
13. SASB_030504_186.JPG: Yet another article, this one from http://www.cdi.org/adm/1020/transcript.html Show Transcript The Military in the Movies Produced January 27, 1997 Air Force NEWS: "No matter where you are, you're never too far from Air Force Television News." ADM. PEASE: "...CNN was onboard the aircraft carrier..." U.S. MARINES Recruiting AD: "You will be changed forever." FRANK GIFFORD: I'm Frank Gifford of "Monday Night Football." I hope you get a chance to see us once in a while, but good luck. We want you to know that we are very proud of what you are doing. We are very proud to be a part of the military and we feel we are on "Monday Night Football." Good luck and God bless you each and every one of you. JOE TRENTO: Suffice it to say, we're talking about many millions of dollars, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars spent on polishing the image, polishing the appearance of the Pentagon and the military services. PHILIP STRUB: Hollywood wants something from us: equipment, access to installations, stories, personnel. And we have the opportunity to tell the public something about the military. Trainee at Media Awareness Exercise: "Ma'am, basically, all the soldiers here are heroes in one way or another." NARRATOR: "America's Defense Monitor" presents a special three-part series: "The Military, the Media, and You." MARINE Drill Instructor: "Don't change that channel!" ADM. JOHN SHANAHAN (USN, Ret.): I'm Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, director of the Center for Defense Information. For more than 90 years the military and Hollywood have worked together to make war movies. These movies create powerful impressions about the military establishment. How closely do these impressions reflect reality? And what's really going on when the military cooperates with the entertainment business? I think you'll find the answers surprising. NARRATOR: The military puts a vast amount of resources into public relations efforts aimed at enhancing its image with the American people. MR. JOE TRENTO: The Pentagon won't tell us how big their PR apparatus is. INTERVIEWER:Joe Trento runs the National Security News Service, a nonprofit news organization that investigates military issues. MR. TRENTO: There are literally hundreds of offices, activities and events all determined to do two things: To increase the Pentagon budget and to decrease public criticism and the media criticism of the Pentagon. NARRATOR: Air shows like this one cost thousands of dollars, but generate uncritical publicity and provide an opportunity for the military to present a powerful "wild blue yonder" image to the public. Media awareness training exercises help troops "get ready for prime time" by sending out mock reporters during operational exercises and tutoring troops on how to respond when a microphone is stuck in their face. Air Force News Announcer: "This is a special edition of Air Force Information News." NARRATOR: The Defense Information School at Fort Meade, Maryland, equips 3800 personnel a year with a broad array of public relations and media skills. But the image factory of Hollywood is where the military has the most profound effect on public consciousness. The Pentagon receives over 200 requests per year from movie producers seeking assistance. Phil Strub is in charge of reviewing the scripts and helping to determine which ones are going to get military cooperation. Philip STRUB: When Hollywood comes to us with a request for production assistance, we have an opportunity, an important opportunity, I think, to tell the American public something about the US military and help recruiting and retention at the same time. NARRATOR: When a moviemaker wants to make a war movie, or even a film that just incidentally includes the military, the natural place to go for props is the Pentagon. Dr. Lawrence SUID: Each side is using the other for its own ends. Filmmakers want to get cheap equipment or free equipment, free use of men. NARRATOR: Lawrence Suid has written several books on the history of military cooperation with the movies, including Sailing on the Silver Screen: Hollywood and the U.S. Navy. DR. SUID: From the service point of view, they wanted to use the films for recruiting, for going to Congress to get money for aircraft carriers, airplanes, submarines, whatever, and so they wanted to make sure the films would serve that purpose. NARRATOR: It's a relationship of mutual exploitation. Moviemakers save money -- where else are you going to get an aircraft carrier, for example? -- and get instant production values from the presence of authentic military hardware. In exchange, the Pentagon gets to influence how it is portrayed on the silver screen. It's an alliance that stretches back to the days of silent movies. The 1927 epic, "Wings," won the first Academy Award for Best Picture for its depiction of World War I aerial combat. (Film clip from "Wings," 1927, Paramount Pictures) MR. STRUB: Prior to that there was technical advice and that sort of thing, but in "Wings" the military cooperated in the production on a large scale for perhaps the first time. (Film clip from "Test Pilot," 1938, MGM) NARRATOR: During the 1930s, Hollywood movies about the military usually dealt with preparedness themes and projected a sense of American security and invulnerability, a sense that was shattered by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. DR. SUID: Part of the reason that Pearl Harbor was so traumatic is that all during the late thirties these films had conveyed the idea that the American military could protect us from any attack, and suddenly we get wiped out. So one, we get wiped out, which is traumatic. But two, the question, how did it happen when the Navy and the Air Force said it never would happen? So this, I think, is very important up to World War II. (Clip of Bing Crosby singing in the Motion Picture Industry's All-Star Bond Rally, 1945.) NARRATOR: During the war the entertainment industry played a major role in supporting the troops and vilifying the enemy. But even before World War II, Hollywood stopped depicting Nazi and Japanese atrocities. DR. SUID: The only reason that I've ever been able to find, and no one's challenged it so far, is that someone in the Pentagon and the State Department suddenly realized that we were going to beat the Japanese and the Germans, and that our real enemy was the Soviet Union and we were going to need allies after the war. So, how are you going to turn the enemy around? Well, the same way you create the images, with film. So, from about the beginning of '44 onward, through the 1960s, into the seventies, you have almost no portrayals of Germans committing atrocities, Japanese committing atrocities. (Film clip from "The Longest Day," 1962, 20th Century Fox) NARRATOR: Most Hollywood scripts seeking military cooperation in the 1950s and sixties contained flattering images of the armed forces. However, the 1953 Oscar-winner "From Here to Eternity" proved controversial. Its searing depiction of military life just before the outbreak of World War II led the Army to refuse access for filming at Schofield Barracks in Hawaii until certain changes were made to the script. DR. SUID: It showed the Army brig as committing atrocities on prisoners and the Army's comment was, "We don't do this anymore, so we don't want to show it." So, they had a long debate back and forth and they sort of moderated a little bit here and a little bit there. And if you listen to Frank Sinatra's explanation of why he's dying, he says, "I fell off a truck," and then he throws in a little bit about being beaten also. (Film Clip from "From Here to Eternity," 1953, Columbia Pictures) (Sinatra's Character, a soldier): "I escaped just like I said, just like I figured. In the back of a truck, on the top. They rode me right out, just like I figured. Only the tailgate opened up, Pru, about a mile back and I fell out on the road. You should have seen me bounce. I must have broke something. Pru -- Fatso done it, Pru. He likes to whack me in the gut." DR. SUID: It gave the Army enough. It did not benefit the Army, but it was in the Army's best interest to give them the facilities in Pearl Harbor to get a slightly toned-down image. NARRATOR: During the Vietnam War, Hollywood shied away from movies with military themes, especially ones with pro-war messages. "The Green Berets," starring John Wayne, was the exception. Released in 1968 as public sentiment against the war was growing, the producers received unlimited cooperation from the Army following a personal letter from Wayne to President Johnson. (Film Clip from "The Green Berets," 1968, Warner Brothers) Reporter to Sergeant in film: "I'm Hugh Parkinson. I happen to be a newspaperman. Since you've been in Vietnam, perhaps you can answer a question that many of our subscribers ask." Sergeant: "We'll try." Reporter: "Why is the United States waging this ruthless war?" Sergeant: "Foreign policy decisions are not made by the military. A soldier goes where he's told to go and fights whomever he's told to fight." DR. SUID: When you go back to John Wayne's "Green Berets," Fort Benning charged him $18,000 for all the fuel, equipment and everything he used. Well, obviously, he'd been there a pretty long time and it cost a lot more, but the Army and the Pentagon wanted the movie made, so, you know, you cook the books a little bit. (From "The Green Berets") Wayne's Character in film: "What are you going to say in that newspaper of yours?" Reporter: "If I say what I feel, I may be out of a job." NARRATOR: Just as the bombing of Pearl Harbor had put the lie to the claim that America was protected from attack, the Vietnam War undermined the movie-borne message that the United States would always prevail in conflict. Public disillusionment with the war also tarnished the image of the military. DR. SUID: When the war ended, we had lost, and Hollywood doesn't like to make movies about losers. So, at first they did nothing. And then the people who thought the war was wrong finally put up their money, after it did no good, and started making a series of antiwar movies or anti-Vietnam movies showing how bad we were there. Well, they overdid it, one. And two, if they really believed it, they should have done it when it would made some difference. NARRATOR: Films such as "The Deer Hunter," "Platoon," and "Apocalypse Now" depicted an unrelentingly bleak view of American involvement in Vietnam. None received Pentagon support in their production. DR. SUID: "Apocalypse Now" did not get cooperation and, in truth, it was for one reason and one word. The springboard is that they're sending Martin Sheen up the river to "terminate" Marlon Brando. And the Army said that we simply cannot show one of our officers going to kill another officer. (Film Clip from "Apocalypse Now," 1979, Zoetrope/Paramount) Martin Sheen's Character: "Terminate the Colonel." Officer to Sheen's Character: "He's out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct and he is still on the field commanding troops." Civilian advisor: "Terminate with extreme prejudice." DR. SUID: If they would've changed the word from "terminate" to "investigate and take appropriate action," they probably would have gone along with it. But it was that one word that really hung them up. NARRATOR: Despite their differences over "Apocalypse Now," director Francis Coppola found the Pentagon more than willing to cooperate a decade later with "Gardens of Stone," which depicts the Vietnam War's impact on the Army at home. The Army's close cooperation lent the film an aura of authenticity. DR. SUID: The Pentagon doesn't hold grudges. They gave him full cooperation on "Gardens of Stone," which is really a very powerful antiwar movie. The funeral at the end where they fire the 21-gun salute and the widow jerks back is terribly powerful. But it showed things fairly accurately, and so the Army said, "Well, whatever he did last time is gone. If he does a better job this time, we'll be glad to help." (Film Clip from "Gardens of Stone," 1987, Tri-Star Pictures) NARRATOR: Following a slew of anti-Vietnam movies, Hollywood began making pictures such as 1982's "An Officer and a Gentleman" that helped rehabilitate the military's tarnished image. Ironically, it had to be made without Pentagon cooperation. (Film Clip from "An Officer and a Gentleman," 1982, Paramount Pictures) DR. SUID: The Navy would have nothing to do with "An Officer and a Gentleman because of the sex, the language, and the fact that one of their guys commits suicide when he washes out. So, it's made without Navy cooperation, and yet it's real good for the Navy because the character, the hero, is really a very nice guy and at the end, just like in all the earlier Navy movies, in his white uniform he comes along and rescues the girl. NARRATOR: This process of rebuilding the military's image in the wake of Vietnam reached its peak with the release of "Top Gun" in 1986, that year's top-grossing movie. The Navy saw this peacetime story of naval fighter pilot school as an opportunity to significantly boost its image and lent unparalleled support in the form of a carrier, aircraft, and technical advice. (Film Clips from "Top Gun," 1986, Paramount Pictures) MR. TRENTO: How did they get the cooperation? They allowed the military to rewrite their script. They essentially gave them the script and anything in the script that the military did not like or didn't think reflected well on the military was edited out and rewritten. MR. STRUB: "Top Gun" was significant to me and to others because it marked a rehabilitation in the portrayal of the military. For the first time in many, many years, you could make a movie that was positive about the military, actors could portray military personnel who were well-motivated, well-intentioned and not see their careers suffer as a consequence. NARRATOR: On top of glamorizing the image of Navy pilots and stimulating a surge in flight training candidates, "Top Gun" also served to boost public confidence in American weapons technology, in general -- technology that would be extensively tested in battle just four years later. DR. SUID: "Top Gun" also in large measure, in my view, prepared the American people for the Gulf War. Before the completion of the rehabilitation, the American people had more or less decided the United States military couldn't do what it said it could do. "Top Gun" showed that we could shoot down airplanes, that our aircraft carriers could go anyplace, and that our pilots were the best. And so, when the Gulf War comes along, there's no reason for any American civilian to believe that we can't beat Saddam Hussein. NARRATOR: However, the success of "Top Gun" backfired on the Navy just five months after the end of the Gulf War when the story broke about sexual harassment at the 1991 Tailhook Convention, an annual gathering of naval aviators. The Pentagon's own investigation into the scandal cited "Top Gun" by name and reported that "Some senior officers...told us that the movie fueled misconceptions on the part of junior officers as to what was expected of them and also served to increase the general awareness of naval aviation and glorify naval pilots in the eyes of many young women." DR. SUID: So, there's this paradox with the movie. It rehabilitates, but it also sets the stage for, in some measure, the scandals that have occurred since. NARRATOR: Joe Trento believes Pentagon cooperation with the movies is aimed in part at countering the negative publicity caused by such scandals. MR. TRENTO: General Joe Ashey flying a young attractive female enlisted aide to his new command from Italy back to the United States, involving a midair refueling that cost $300,000. An incident like that that becomes public and gets on "20/20," for example, and a lot of people watch it, does enormous damage to their image, and so they have to make up for that. And so, they look at that and they say, 'Well, how can we make up for this? Well, can we get a movie made about the Air Force that will make us look better? Can we get some favorable pieces on "20/20" or "60 Minutes"? Can we get some better coverage in People magazine using one of our heroes, say from Bosnia?' And that's how they think. It's a battle. It's a war. MR. STRUB: I don't think our participation is a reaction to negative publicity or negative coverage in the media. It is a component of public affairs. It reflects a desire on our part to take advantage of an opportunity to tell the public something that we think is accurate about us. NARRATOR: The military provides support to only about one-third of the 200-plus requests for assistance from moviemakers it received a year. How does the Pentagon decide which scripts to cooperate on? MR. STRUB: Typically, we don't cooperate with a production when we feel that the military portrayals are so unrealistic, so wildly unrealistic that it goes beyond artistic license, and drama, and action into a realm of such pure fancy that we think it's actually misleading. An example would be "Crimson Tide," where we feel that the premise -- that is, an armed mutiny aboard a nuclear submarine is just so impossible an event to have ever taken place that we just couldn't see our way toward providing assistance. (Film Clip from "Crimson Tide," 1995, Hollywood Pictures) MR. TRENTO: They don't deal with reality. They deal with what can improve their image. They don't care about anything except that. MR. STRUB: We're often asked what is the picture that you would never touch. And it's very hard to come up with one because although you could say, well, we would never do a dramatization of the My Lai incident of the Vietnam War, for example. But I don't know if that's true, strictly speaking. NARRATOR: My Lai, the 1968 massacre of an estimated 150 unarmed civilians by American troops in Vietnam, and its subsequent cover-up was perhaps the worst disgrace in Army history. MR. TRENTO: What if you wanted to make a movie about My Lai or something bad in American history? You will not get military cooperation. They demand censorship of the scripts. MR. STRUB: Obviously, it would give everybody a great deal of trepidation to pursue that, but it's all is how it's handled in the script. If it's handled in such a way that the viewer understands how something horrible like that can take place, in some kind of awful, catastrophic extremity of events, how people may or may not feel guilt, how wrongdoers are punished, how steps are taken to prevent that from happening again, you know, all these are factors that would mitigate our apprehension over the subject matter. NARRATOR: Once a script is modified to the Pentagon's satisfaction and it agrees to cooperate, there is the question of who pays for the military's participation. MR. STRUB: The support that we provide, the physical production support that we provide is at no cost to the taxpayer. MR. TRENTO: Of course, it costs huge amounts because they write it off as training. So, you'll be flying F-18s and F-15s around, and that's training. These things cost thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars per hour to fly. The reality is that the costs are not sensibly calculated. NARRATOR: Often the weapons and personnel are provided free of charge. But if the moviemakers require military hardware to perform especially for the camera, the production company generally pays for the time. An Army Blackhawk helicopter costs the producers $5,250 an hour for such special duty, a tiny fraction of what, say Tom Cruise costs them. MR. STRUB: If they're on an aircraft carrier and they're filming flight operations just as a target of opportunity, they're not going to be charged for that. On the other hand, if the director says, "You know, I'd really like that F/A-18 to launch in the next 15 minutes and turn left and fly a course of 180," then the clock is going to start. That they'll pay for the catapult launch, they'll pay whatever associated costs are incurred to launch that aircraft, to fly that aircraft. NARRATOR: Beyond the issue of costs, there is the ethical question of whether it is appropriate for the military to participate in the movie industry at all. MR. TRENTO: I think that the whole idea of using the military in the entertainment business is insane and it's absolutely absurd to let the military dictate through tax-paid equipment -- through their control of tax-paid equipment what goes in movies. MR. STRUB: My feeling is the taxpayer is burdened with the considerable cost of retaining people, of recruiting people, and to the extent that we can foster good morale about staying in the military or joining the military is a way that we can save the taxpayer money. DR. SUID: There is a congressional stipulation that the services are supposed to promote themselves. And implicit in that is to promote yourself positively. No organization is going to help create a negative image of itself. NARRATOR: The question is, how accurately does the image projected in the movies portray the realities of military life? Since the draft ended in 1972, fewer and fewer Americans have had contact with the armed forces and the military has become more isolated from the rest of society. MR. STRUB: We try to foster images in these productions that continue to show the US military as a normal part of society, that the people who are in uniform are not any different from anybody else. They've chosen a career in the military, but that doesn't make them different people. So, to the extent that we can demythologize or set the record straight, perhaps in contrast to some of the overblown imagery of the military that you see in these pictures, that's an objective that we think is a worthy one to pursue. NARRATOR: But whether Pentagon PR is busting myths or creating them depends on your point of view. MR. TRENTO: I have great admiration for a lot that the military does. There's a huge professional contingent of people in the military who earn very little money, who risk their lives and work very hard. But I want to separate that from this Disney World vision of the military that the Pentagon PR office is trying to create. NAVY/MARINE CORPS News Newscaster: "I don't think it's any coincidence that the best flicks of '96 involved military themes in one way or another." NARRATOR: In an era when cuts in government spending are viewed as essential to the country's economic health, the Pentagon's budget has been off-the-table in Congress. Does its image in the movies boost support for military spending? MR. STRUB: It's probably true to say that we feel that our participation in these films conveys a positive, a generally positive image about the military and, hopefully, that has a resonance in the American public. And if as a consequence of that feeling of goodwill or trust about the military results in our getting support for our programs, then I guess you could make that point, that there is some effect. But we don't approach this moviemaking business as if there is a causal relationship between a movie and a budget, or a movie and a specific recruiting objective; it's more general than that. MR. TRENTO: This is directly related to keeping the base of public support for the military at a very high level in order to get money they need to operate in Congress. You've got to look at some things. They've been very successful. We've had a huge collapse of all our enemies around the world. There has not been a similar collapse in the Pentagon budget or, for that matter, in the national security budget on the intelligence side. Why is that? It's because they've kept saying, "There are dangers. There are dangers. There are dangers." Military Officer (Congressional testimony):"This is a very dangerous world." William PERRY, Secretary of Defense (before Congress): "There are serious threats to our interests." Military Officer (Congressional testimony): "The danger." Military Officer (Congressional testimony): "There are transnational threats." Military Officer (Congressional testimony): "The US is affected by transnational threats." SEC. PERRY: "These are the dangers we face every day." NARRATOR: The movies can also become a battleground for interservice rivalry, as each branch of the armed forces vies for a bigger slice of the military budget pie. Throughout the Cold War the Navy promoted movies that depicted nuclear missile submarines and carrier-based aviation as key to countering the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, the Air Force pushed its case with support for movies about long-range bombing missions and heroic fighter pilots. MR. STRUB: The end of the Cold War has meant for Hollywood a big problem because we no longer have the great villain in the form of the Soviet Union. And so, they're finding it difficult to come up with appropriate villains for us to fight. NARRATOR: The same could be said for the Pentagon. But in any case, the military's days in Hollywood may be numbered. As computer-generated graphics become cheaper and more realistic, moviemakers are becoming less and less dependent on military cooperation. MR. TRENTO: That is going to be the future in moviemaking, where it'll all be computer-generated, you won't have to be submitting anything, and I wonder what the Pentagon's going to do then. Also, I must remind the producers out there that the old Soviet military and all its apparatus is available for rental, cheap, and they don't really care what you put in your scripts. ADM. SHANAHAN: Hollywood is in the business of glamour and image-making. On the other hand, the US military is in the business of protecting the American public, which sometimes involves killing people and destroying things. This is not glamorous, but it's sometimes necessary. It's important we keep a clear distinction between movie-made images and reality. Join us next week when we begin a series on the legacy of nuclear weapons. Until then, for "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR," I am Jack Shanahan. Produced by the Center for Defense Information Scriptwriter: Glenn Baker Segment Producer: Glenn Baker Show Number: 1020 Center for Defense Information 1779 Mass Ave NW Washington DC 20036 1(800)CDI-3334
14. SASB_030504_193.JPG: Panel 2: Mitch Marovitz (Army Public Affairs Office, LA). Talked about why the rejected "Forrest Gump" (a soldier in uniform couldn't have been at a peace march) but helped with "Tuskegee Airmen".
15. SASB_030504_302.JPG: Panel 3: Robert Fyne (Professor, Kean University, author of "The Hollywood Propaganda of WWII").
16. SASB_030504_307.JPG: Panel 3: Jack Green (Navy Historical Center, historical advisor to Navy motion pictures). He talked about how much they hated the new "Pearl Harbor" movie.
17. SASB_030504_334.JPG: Here is panel 3. Left to right: Robert Fyne, Peter Lev, and Jack Green.
18. SASB_030504_337.JPG: Panel 3: Peter Lev (Professor, Towson State University)
19. SASB_030504_352.JPG: This part I really liked. It was an end-of-session Q&A and the previous participants came up and just sat on the stage steps answering questions.
Multi Column: Number of columns of thumbnails to appear per page (normally defaults to 3): [1 col] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
Bigger photos? To save server space, the full-sized versions of these images have either not been loaded to the server or have been removed from the server. (Only some pages are loaded with full-sized images and those usually get removed after three months.) I still have them though. If you want me to email them to you, please send an email to guthrie.bruce@gmail.com and I can email them to you, or, depending on the number of images, just repost the page again will the full-sized images.
Directly Related Pages: Other pages with content (Smithsonian Associates -- ) directly related to this one: [Display ALL photos on one page]:
- 2009_DC_Sarcophagus_090326: Smithsonian Associates & the Embassy of the Republic of Cyprus -- Sarcophagus from Palaipafos (77 photos from 2009)
- 2008_DC_McPherson_081111: Smithsonian Associates -- James McPherson ("Abraham Lincoln as Commander-in-Chief") (2 photos from 2008)
- 2008_DC_Brubeck_080409: Smithsonian Associates -- Dave Brubeck (w/Deepak Ram) (51 photos from 2008)
- 2007_DC_Turner_070420: Smithsonian Associates -- Ted Turner (46 photos from 2007)
- 2007_DC_Martin_071127: Smithsonian Associates -- Steve Martin ("Born Standing Up") (10 photos from 2007)
- 2007_DC_Frost_071030: Smithsonian Associates -- David Frost (35 photos from 2007)
- 2007_DC_Frommer_071129: Smithsonian Associates -- Traveling Beyond Tourism (w/Arthur and Pauline Frommer) (22 photos from 2007)
- 2006_DC_SASC_060622: Smithsonian Associates -- Superman on the Couch (26 photos from 2006)
- 2006_DC_SAPA_060301: Smithsonian Associates -- Presidents All (17 photos from 2006)
- 2006_DC_SAAAL_060515: Smithsonian Associates -- Assassination of Abraham Lincoln (James Swanson, Edward Steers Jr.) (14 photos from 2006)
- ...More (List all 66 pages)...
Same Subject: Click on this link to see coverage of items having the same subject: [(Smithsonian) Smithsonian Associate Events] [Display ALL (Smithsonian) Smithsonian Associate Events photos] [Film Events]
2003 photos: Equipment this year: I decided my Epson digital camera wasn't quite enough for what I wanted. Since I already had Compact Flash chips for it, I had to find another camera which used CF chips. That brought me to buy the Fujifilm S602 Zoom in March 2003. A great digital camera, I used it exclusively for an entire year. Trips this year: Three-week trip this year out west, mostly in Utah. Number of photos taken this year: 68,000.
Connection Not Secure messages? Those warnings you get from your browser about this site not having secure connections worry some people. This means this site does not have SSL installed (the link is http:, not https:). That's bad if you're entering credit card numbers, passwords, or other personal information. But this site doesn't collect any personal information so SSL is not necessary. Life's good!
Limiting Text: You can turn off all of this text by clicking this link: [Thumbnails Only]
Photo Contact: [Email Bruce Guthrie].